United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 14, 2007

Decided December 14, 2007

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 06-3277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LEONARDO ANGULO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 04-CR-682-7

Ronald A. Guzman,

Judge.

O R D E R

Leonardo Angulo was charged with conspiring to possess and distribute

cocaine and marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and using a cellular phone to

commit a drug felony, see § 843(b). He agreed to plead guilty to the conspiracy in

exchange for the dismissal of the other count. As part of the written plea

agreement, the parties stipulated to a total offense level of 38 and a criminal history

category of I, though both numbers were made contingent on the probation officer’s

later investigation and the district court’s approval. The government also promised

to recommend a prison sentence at the statutory minimum or the bottom of the

guidelines range, whichever was higher. The parties disagreed, however,

concerning Angulo’s eligibility for a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 06-3277 Page 2

Later during the presentence investigation, the probation officer learned that

Angulo had been convicted in California of transporting cocaine, putting him in

criminal history category II. The probation officer also determined that Angulo

played an average role in the drug-trafficking ring, and thus should not receive an

reduction under § 3B1.2. The resulting total offense level of 38 combined with his

criminal history category of II yielded a guidelines imprisonment range of 151 to

188 months. 

At sentencing Angulo objected to the probation officer’s calculation of his

criminal history points, arguing that the plea agreement constituted a binding

promise that he would receive zero criminal history points. Angulo also argued that

his criminal history score overstated the likelihood that he would commit other

crimes and that a prison term of nine years, more than three years below the

guidelines range, would be appropriate. The district court disagreed and sentenced

Angulo to 151 months. The court observed that Angulo’s prior conviction together

with his long-time involvement with his coconspirators supported a withinguidelines sentence. 

Angulo appeals, but his appointed lawyer has moved to withdraw because he

cannot discern any nonfrivolous argument to pursue. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). We invited Angulo to comment on counsel’s submission, see Cir. R.

51(b), but he has not responded. We review only those potential issues identified in

counsel’s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74

(7th Cir. 2002). 

 Counsel initially informs us that Angulo does not wish to challenge his guilty

plea, and so he properly refrains from discussing possible arguments about the

voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of the plea colloquy. See United States v.

Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671-72 (7th Cir. 2002). Instead, counsel first considers whether

Angulo could argue that the district court erred in calculating the advisory

guidelines range. Specifically, counsel asks whether Angulo could argue that the

court’s consideration of his prior conviction was foreclosed by the plea agreement. 

But as counsel correctly observes, the plea agreement did not guarantee that

Angulo would receive zero criminal history points—instead, the agreement

expressly provided that the parties’ calculations were contingent upon the probation

officer’s independent investigation and the district court’s approval. See U.S.S.G.

§ 6B1.4(d); see also United States v. Williams, 198 F.3d 988, 994 (7th Cir. 1999);

United States v. Mankiewicz, 122 F.3d 399, 403 n.1 (7th Cir. 1997). Indeed, the

agreement spells out that the stipulation concerning Angulo’s criminal history

category was premised “on the facts known to the government,” and Angulo was not

free to withhold relevant information and then later cry foul. See Williams, 198

F.3d at 994 (observing that sentencing judge should rely on information in
No. 06-3277 Page 3

presentence report where parties’ stipulations are inaccurate or incomplete). 

Accordingly, counsel correctly concludes that pursuing this argument would be

frivolous.

Counsel next considers whether Angulo could challenge the reasonableness of

his prison sentence. We presume that a sentence within a correctly calculated

guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Rita, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007);

United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). The standard for

assessing reasonableness is whether the district court gave meaningful

consideration to the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. See United

States v. Laufle, 433 F.3d 981, 987 (7th Cir. 2006). Counsel asks whether Angulo

could argue that the district court should have sentenced him below the guidelines

range on the ground that his criminal history points overstate the likelihood that he

will commit other crimes. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b); United States v. Wurzinger, 467

F.3d 649, 654 (7th Cir. 2006). But after weighing Angulo’s past drug distribution,

the scope and severity of his present crime, and the impact of drugs on society, the

district court reasonably concluded that Angulo’s history as a drug dealer make him

a likely recidivist. See Wurzinger, 467 F.3d at 654. Counsel has been unable to

identify any reason that this case might be the exception to Rita’s presumption of

reasonableness, nor on this record can we. See United States v. Gammicchia, 498

F.3d 467, 468 (7th Cir. 2007). We thus agree with counsel that a reasonableness

challenge would be frivolous.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the

appeal.